the source of life

I've been reading this thread for an hour or so. By doing so I have been reminded of how the people of different ideologies look at life, origins etc and how different folks arrive at conclusions.While reading, as an ID Biblical creationist I've been thinking about how to express my own POV on the source of life.Here's what keeps me into the Biblical literal Genesis hypothesis relative to the source of life:1. No creation of energy is observed. Thus I assume that all energy is eternal.2. Since all energy is eternal that does not contradict the Biblical record.3. Observation attests to the likelihood that life comes from life. Therefore the likelihood of the source of life being an eternal source does not contradict the Biblical record.4. Observation attests to the likelihood that complex design is effected by a designer. Again, no contradiction to the Biblical record.5. Scientifically speaking, the more corroborating evidence there is supportive of a/an hypothesis there is, the more credible the hypothesis.6. Though there are debatable aspects of the Biblical record, there are historical, prophetic fulfillments, archaeological, social, and experiential corroborating evidences supportive of the Biblical record.7. The more corroborative evidences that can be cited supportive to any historical record, the more under girded the questionable and unsupported portions of the record become. As in working with science theory and hypotheses, math, etc; the unknowns are accepted or incorporated by alleged knowns by the proponents of a given hypothesis or theoryIn conclusion, There are just too many supportive evidences relative to the Biblical record and too many questionable science related problems with the unknowns of the naturalistic/secularistic mainline science POV pertaining to the source of life.Having said the above, I realize that to discuss any or all of the above in debth would lead off topic. There are other threads where we have done and can do this.I am unable to fully support all of my reasons for holding to the literalistic Biblical POV or to refute all of the arguments to the contrary. I remain with where I see the most evidence.The above is not to mention the overwhelming personal experiential day by day evidence which I experience personally through application of the Biblical gospel and Biblical principles to my life and observation of that pertaining to many friends and family who are Biblicalists. Of course, these evidences are moot so far as convincing someone else by them alone. These simply corroborate the above cited evidences which assure me that the narrow road that leads to life is the cool way to go.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Hi Bluejay. Very cute and comment. Shades are cool, you know, and perhaps suited to folks who walk in the brightness of enlightenment. Having read most of your input in this thread (I tend to hone in on your input as I regard it to be fair and balanced, for the most part,) I am flattered that this is all you've come up with in response to the points of my message. Likely if there were substantial arguments to my points, you would have cited them.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Does the Casimir effect empirically establish that energy can actually cease to exist or is it possible that it is changed to a state undetectable by humans? If energy can cease to exist does that falsify 1LoT, or does 1LoT falsify the Casimir effect?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

1. By "accepted" I mean they are acceptable aspects of the given hypothesis or theory. For example, the unknown aspects of the BB and of abiogenesis are integral to the scientific ideology.2. Again, the points you made are debatable but this is not the place to diverge into them in debth. My purpose was to summarize my reasons for staying with the Biblical record and why I do not regard it as empirically falsified.3. I regard the mysterious aspects of the Biblical record on origins to be no more so than the mysterious aspects of particle and negative energy physics, for example. For me, a source of eternal energy, design and life, as per the Biblical record, relative to what is observed, make more sense than what conventional science has to offer.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

OK, let's analyze our statements: But BB science assumes T=O preceded the BB and there are unknowns & debatables relative to aspects of T=O; unknowns relative to where the energy came from, whether the energy was hidden in a vacuum as negative energy, what precipitated the expansion, etc.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.